Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism

 Main Talk Portal Showcase Assessment Collaboration Incubator Guide Newsroom About Us Commons 

"How right-wingers took over Wikipedia"

Contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the members of this wikiproject, it is the right wingers who are running this sanitarium, according to Marc McDonald. He writes, "Increasingly over the years, literally thousands of Wikipedia’s political articles have gradually and quietly been given a right-wing spin" and explains "the right-wing “contributors” are ferociously tenacious. They will go in and sanitize and slant an article over and over until it reads the way they want it to. These people are well-organized, ruthless and determined and they usually eventually get their way, via sheer blunt force." For evidence he offers the "sanitized" George Bush and what he describes as extremely unflattering Bill Clinton article. IMO Mr. McDonald should be blocked for fostering a WP:Battleground mentality. McDonald's ridiculous and irrational "analysis" makes fascinating reading. But the piece de resistance comes by way of the first post in the Reader Comments section (emph. mine):

You don't know the half of it. The editors at WikiProject Conservatism have teamed up with the exiles and wikihaters at Wikipediocracy to oust administrators they think are too liberal. There's an ongoing effort to purge Wikipedia of liberal editors and entrap them in time consuming arbitration processes. This, along with off-site coordination of editors paid through advocacy groups like the Susan B. Anthony List has been steadily eroding Wikipedia's ability to remain an impartial resource. --Scarb

My jaw dropped in disbelief when I read that. Maybe he should've interviewed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, or NYYankees, or Haymaker, or any of the dozen other editors banned in the Abortion arbom case. Ironic to be sure. I'll paraphrase our VP and leave you with this 3-letter word: LMFAO. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: WTF is "Wikipediocracy?"

Liberals tend to have a real talent for projection. This is a stunning example. Oh, and I found this: Wikipediocracy Belchfire (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

For the second time, please stop referring to critics as "liberals" as if that word was a pejorative. This isn't a battleground. Marc McDonald is absolutely correct, and given our demographic in engineering and science, our active editors are overwhelmingly conservative, with liberals in the minority. Howver, many of these so-called conservatives refer to themselves as "libertarians". The idea that "there's an ongoing effort to purge Wikipedia of liberal editors and entrap them in time consuming arbitration processes" has been true since I got here in 2004. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, that's something of an understatement. It's not just that there's an effort to purge liberals, but that Lionelt is leading it.[1] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change our logo

WikiProject Conservatism don't care

I propose that we change our logo from Edmund Burke to the most ferrocious and tenacious animal on the planet, he's ruthless and determined and always gets his way, usually, I give you... the honey badger. LMFAO. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with classifying parties as 'conservative' in non-western contexts

Hi there. I think this is a valuable project, but I do have one concern which I've seen a few times, which is the extension of 'conservatism' to countries with political systems very different from those in America and Europe. For example, I've seen political groups in Russia tagged as part of WikiProject Conservatism - but who are the 'conservatives' in modern Russia? Those who want to restore the Soviet Union? Supporters of Putin's government? Those who support right-wing politics in general? It's not obviously clear. Likewise, in countries like Egypt or Iran - does 'conservatism' refer to supporters of the old regime, or religious conservatives, or what? Taiwanese politics is based around the division between closer and further relations with China - who are the 'conservatives' there?

All I'm asking for a little restraint in tagging people and groups as part of this project. Not every country has a political system like that of the United States, and not every political system has a faction that corresponds to what we think of as 'conservatism'. I'm not saying this template can't be used to tag groups outside of the US and Europe, but think carefully before you do. Robofish (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Conservatism can be defined as contextual, in which case every country has conservatives. Or it can be defined as an ideology with specific principles, in which case it is limited to Western Europe and countries that have copied European conservatism. Specifically they are parties that developed out of a royalist or aristocratic reaction to liberalism. I believe though that both Putin's party and the KMT consider themselves conservatives. However I see no reason to include liberal, religious, post-communist, nationalist or other parties that do not consider themselves conservatives. TFD (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your beliefs are errant. Putin does not call himself "conservative" nor did the KMT call itself "conservative". They are both "nationalist". That does not make either example "conservative." All of which misses the point - any project "interested" in an article is free, on Wikipedia, to tag that article as being one of interest to that project. It does not make the subject of the article "conservative" as in this case. And such a tag can be discussed here, and is subject to consensus here. Collect (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"At its most recent national convention in St. Petersburg in November 2009, Vladimir Putin's United Russia described itself again as a conservative party. Officially, it stands for the country's heritage and its values."[2] See the Greenwood History of China entry for the KMT: "politically conservative".[3] TFD (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your "conservative Putin" nationalised some industries. Not "conservative" AFAICT, except as you note in being nationalist. Which I already accepted. The KMT is now labelled "conservative" mainly in its stance on nationalism also. Again - I said that already. [4] calls the KMT "centre-right" which is a very broad area. The Economist [5] says the KMT had a substantial shift in 2001 to reunificationism, which is unlikely to be viewed as "conservative." In short, Houston, we have a problem in trying to use "political spectrums" as contant in any sense of the word. Collect (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am having difficulty following your criteria for inclusion. You vote to include the liberal National Party of Honduras and the right-wing extremist Swiss People's Party because someone once called them that, yet exclude other parties. Actually nationalization of industry can be conservative, Bismarck nationalized industry. TFD (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no "criteria for inclusion." I have made no such "votes." I suggest that inclusion is entirely up to the people here, using WP:CONSENSUS and nothing more. I assert nothing about what I "know" to be the "truth" - I suggest that the way Wikiprojects work is by doing what CONSENSUS dictates, not by me giving some sily "criteria" which I would impose on this project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus only comes about after editors requested something be included/excluded. Are you saying that you have no criteria for requesting inclusion/exclusion before consensus is reached? Or do you have criteria for your decisions? TFD (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You claimed I have made "votes" here to include some particular party. I assert that my position has been, and remains, that it is up to WP:CONSENSUS and not any "votes" as to what should be part of the project and what should not be part of the project. Is there some actual reason for your iterated queries here? Collect (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Major change to socially conservative orgs & people

An editor is changing the ledes of pro-family/pro-life articles from "social conservative" to "traditional values." I've reverted where the new sentence is ungrammatical, but left the others for the time being. IMO the "social conservatism" article is the better wikilink because it best describes the orgs & people at issue. Other thoughts? – Lionel ^(talk) 10:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

By ungrammatical i presume you mean the instances where traditional value had an "s" at the end. Is that what you meant? Pass a Method talk 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw, i wouldn't have reverted you if i felt you were not stalking my edits. But you're behavior in the past has clearly shown you are stalking me. Pass a Method talk 10:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that you just confessed to WP:POINTy editing? Reverting based on retaliation is disruptive. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not revert based on retaliation. I simply have a low faith in your editing ability because of some of your past behaviors (including stalking). This is why i give less consideration to your opinion. Thats not retaliatory editing. Pass a Method talk 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Guess what... after your little stunt of unilaterally renaming all of the "Homosexuality and [insert religion]" articles there are probably about a dozen editors "stalking" you. Hmmm... and here you are again unilaterally making major changes to articles. I guess you didn't learn your lesson the last time. And btw, before you accuse someone of "stalking" maybe you should read WP:HOUND so you will know what you are talking about.– Lionel ^(talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I havent noticed stalking from anyone but you so stop trying to divert attention from yourself . In fact, at one point recently i was thinking of leaving a note on your talk page about it again but i thought i would give you the benefit of the doubt and avoud a message on your talk page. But once again today, you show up today. From now on i will propose for you to avoid interacting with me and i will do the same. This way you can prove that you are not in fact stalking me. In case we do happen to incidentaly interact, you can instead leave a message on my talk page or on a wikiproject about my edit. The next time you show up at my edits i will post about it on a noticeboard. Pass a Method talk 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As for major changes, i dont see how changing a term with a synonymous one can be considered a "major change". Pass a Method talk 13:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If it were "synonymous" it would lead to the same article. It doesn't, therefore is not "synonymous" by Wikipedia usage. Collect (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics

• RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan filmography needs reviewers

This is a really cool list with lots of cool info about Reagan. Did you know "Throughout his film career, his mother often answered much of his fan mail"? You can help get this to Featured List by clicking here. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with Bob Corker article

Hello, I work on Bob Corker's campaign and I'm looking for help in improving weaker areas of his Wikipedia article. Currently there is little information about his tenure as Mayor of Chattanooga. I have proposed a few paragraphs on the article's discussion page that I think could work in the article under the heading about his mayorship. Here is the link to that request: Talk:Bob_Corker#Information_to_add_to_Mayor_of_Chattanooga Since there have not been any replies yet I've come here to see if anyone can help. Please see my message on the discussion page for more details. Thanks. Mark from tn (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Tea Party politicians again

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Tea Party politicians#List needs scrubbing that could do with broader input. Thanks in advance! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Roanoke, Virginia Obama speech

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Barack Obama#. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

More opportunities for editors to access free research databases!

The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to conservatism and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

• Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.--JayJasper (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

500,000 jobs lost under Bush administration?

Can anyone confirm that the US lost 500,000 private sector jobs under Bush? Should this be added to the encyclopedia article on the Bush admin? Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, we lost 3.5 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush Administration alone. And another 3.4 million in the first 6 months of the Obama Administration (whether this was a result of Obama's immediate implementation of "job-killing" policies or a continuation of the economic catastrophe that was the Bush Administration depends on your perspective, I suppose). The economy began adding jobs in October 2010, and has steadily added jobs since (source). MastCell ^Talk 06:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The content best belongs to the event 2007–2009 recession in the United States. If one president is mentioned, both should be mentioned, as well as a mention of continued over 8% unemployment (U-3) since, and the wider (and larger) U-6 rate (closer to the traditional way of figuring unemployment); sources: CNBC, WSJ, & BLS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The unemployment rate is 8.3%. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, if the source(s) links it to Bush, only Bush should be mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do they? Do they not also say, as mentioned above, of the increased job loss at the beginning of the Obama administration, and the continued high unemployment during the present administration? These are both factual.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan needs our help!!!

Just when you thought there was nothing for WPRight members to do this election season, David Axelrod says that Ryan is a "certifiable right-wing ideologue." LOL. Colleagues, the 2012 campaign has taken a decidedly sharp turn to the right and it's time for us to get off of our asses. Did you know that Obama's article is FA? And Biden and Mitt are GA? Guess what Paul's article is... C!!! Yikes. Who wants to plaster a shiny green plus on their userpages? It's time for a collaboration!!!– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sign here for Paul Ryan GA Team

1. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
3. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Proper understanding of "help"

Improving the page is an excellent goal, and I don't mean to find fault with that. However, what David Axelrod said has nothing to do with it, nor is any implied intention to argue against what Axelrod said. In fact, depending upon how the sourcing lines up, it might even be appropriate to quote and cite Axelrod's statement, so long as it isn't given undue weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with the established liberal gatekeepers

I have observed for a long time the tactics of what I suspect are full-time liberal wiki "gatekeeper" editors employed by the professional left think-tanks, etc who work in small groups to support each others edit wars on political pages. These gatekeepers are relentless, and will keep reverting edits and targeting individual editors for months on end regardless of proper citations, sources, etc, knowing that sooner or later their target will just give up. These are established editors, but when you look through their histories, they are filled exclusively with non-stop edit wars on political pages, always supporting left-wing agendas with blatant, often absurd bias. Attempts to escalate their edit wars only bring out their posse to defend each other. The problem here is that these gatekeepers are the judge, jury, and executioners and nothing can get by them. The result is that a small group of radical left-wingers are rewriting history and using WP as a propaganda platform.

Another thing I've seen is how they establish multi-layer levels of obfuscation of terminology that is nearly impossible to unravel. For example, the left wingers themselves define what "radical right wing" means, and then use their own definition to label other pages, saying that radical right wing has been defined, so it is proper to use freely. They have turned what used to be middle-of-the road conservatives in past decades (such as Reagan and now Paul Ryan) into "radical right wingers". They freely cite works from known left-wing authors as being sources to support their statements, and edit-war any attempts to refute those citations. I sincerely worry about what our children are learning from these pages.

The question is, how can these established editors get flushed out for who they are, and what they are doing in tandem with each other? They absolutely control the political pages, and are responsible for the liberal propaganda platform Wikipedia has become. It almost requires a group of moderates to relentlessly target their edit wars to try to bring NPOV moderation. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)